Posted
by
kdawson
on Tuesday June 17, 2008 @05:52PM
from the baby-needs-a-new-pair-of-shoes dept.

orenh writes "Recent data indicate that Apple engineers have significantly lower salaries than their Silicon Valley peers: $89,000 at Apple, versus $105,000 at Yahoo and $112,000 at Google. Paying lower salaries had a major impact on Apple's bottom line when it was struggling in the market up until 2004. But now that Apple is highly profitable, these lower salaries are no longer a factor in Apple's success. Will Apple have to raise salaries to match the market rate, or face defections?"

I live in the area, and let me tell you, people would rather KNOW they are going to have a paycheck, at least in theory because of seniority if nothing else, than NOT because they jumped ship to get a 20K a year raise.

Not when you paid nearly a million dollars for your 3 bedroom house.

There ARE people within a few miles of my house paying 25 thousand dollars a month in RENT.... My neighborhood is in the 2 to 3K a month range, and if I KNEW I could pay my bills with the economy going to the toilet, there is NO good reason for me to jump ship for a raise.

Three years ago, they ALL would have jumped ship. It's a different type of world now, since foreclosures, etc. are looming everywhere. Local trash mags have foreclosure sales listed, as do newspapers.

Apple should pony up some of those profits, but a smart board and CFO would realize, they might need a bit of cheese to get them through the thin period we can all see coming.

While I doubt working at Apple would be much more fun and mentally stimulating than working at google, as long as I enjoy my job and can pay the bills plus a few luxuries (mostly music, movies and video games for me), I honeslty wouldn't care how much I earned. Those salaries are all above mine, though for the average 24 year old in western civilisation I'm probably doing quite well for myself tbh. My rent is only Â£215 a month including broadband though, in an area where Â£300 or more

I agree. I recently went from $110K/year with 15% bonus to $95K/year without a bonus for better job security and satisfaction. Company I left has since removed bonus, frozen pay increases, decreased 401K matching, and now fires people w/o severance instead of layoffs. I have a great job with a small company, a great boss that I respect, and work fewer hours.

A couple of adjustments, like paying off a car and riding my motorcycle to work everyday instead of 3 or 4 times a week and I hardly notice. The bills are paid, I still have a growing 401k, and the credit card debt is going down instead of up. Maybe not as fast as it did a year ago, but in the right direction.

I can't speak to the Apple engineers, but I will argue that taking another job purely on salary isn't always the best thing to do. And ratings in magazines rarely add in other perks.

I agree about the pay; I was in a job being paid around $20 per hour - the job was pretty easy (non-IT related btw), but the boss was an asshole. Now sure, for the first few months I could do the old thing of "lay back, and think of the queen", but that only works for so longer. The extra pay, no matter how great it may be, will never offset in the long run a crappy work environment. The work environment is where one spends at least 1/3 of their life, all the money in the world isn't going to make the work environment better.

I went from that job to another job (again, non-IT related), I earned less money BUT at the same time, I had alot more perks. I was head of a department in an section of the retail sector which provides stable long term employment. My co-workers were down to earth genuine people rather than egotistical pricks like I've seen in the IT world. Sales representatives giving the ability to get things at wholesale prices (for my own person consumption etc).

Believe me, before I went back to University, I had a pretty sweet time in that job.

It's reading things like this that help put my little worldview in perspective. I'm out in the sticks of Eastern Washington (the state), earning ~52k writing software, paying 645 for a two-bed, and maybe a mile from the Columbia River and the mess of parks cluttering the shore.

"Will Apple have to raise salaries to match the market rate, or face defections?"

Yes!

Nope. Not only are Apple employees more than likely as fanatical about the product as the loyal Apple consumers (and if you're unkind you can say that they drank the Kool-Aid).

Pride in what you do and a sense of corporate individuality is a huge factor in determinining the loyalty of employees.

Look at Games Workshop as an example. They borderline brainwash staff to love their job, and then they pay them so little that they generally have to share accomodation with fellow staff. And yet the staff turnover is surprisingly low for such a relatively crappy and intensive job.

Pride in what you do and a sense of corporate individuality is a huge factor in determining the loyalty of employees.

I agree, but I think you overestimate this effect. In Apple, with Ive and Jobs generally being the public faces, it's rare for the guys in the trenches to get noticed. Not everybody's ego is pleased with a pat on the back. They need public accolades, more money, or a mix of both.

Also, as sexy as Apple's products are, they don't have a very large lineup. There's no dearth of sexy products in the rest of the tech. world, and people do often move -- we'd probably be surprised at the number of people who have worked for at least 2 companies out of Apple, Google, and MS.

The numbers in TFA (Glassdoor) are based on a sample set that's way too small to be a statistically "representative sample". So we don't even know if Apple engineers really are paid less than the average silicon valley employee.

The one effect the article seems to miss: Apple's stock has been on fire for some time now. So if Apple employees are getting stock awards and have a decent employee stock purchase plan, the raw salary numbers aren't telling us the whole story.

When the other companies in the Valley are hiring again, and Apple continues to have lower salaries, yes they will need to raise them.

$89K/year won't get you a house even with today's market. Maybe an OK condo, assuming a bank will give you a loan. But if you don't mind driving 100+ miles each way, then you could get a decent structure, though the neighborhood might be in the middle of nowhere. Rents are going back up, but if you don't mind living in small apartments to be able to have some play money, then sure, $89K is enough.

For those who just see the numbers and have no idea about cost of living, $700 for an apartment is awesome in the midwest, but $1400-1600 in the Valley will at least keep you out of the bad neighborhoods. After gas, food, and utilities, you'd be lucky to have anything left over to go out and socialize. In the midwest, you'd live like royalty.

"$89K/year won't get you a house even with today's market. Maybe an OK condo, assuming a bank will give you a loan. But if you don't mind driving 100+ miles each way, then you could get a decent structure, though the neighborhood might be in the middle of nowhere. Rents are going back up, but if you don't mind living in small apartments to be able to have some play money, then sure, $89K is enough.

Wow....I mean, I figure if you've got a few years experience under your belt...$89K/yr is really NOT that great?!?! And I mean not great in areas that aren't nearly as expensive as out there in Silicon Valley.

As the parent said...people paid over a million dollars a pop for homes out there that aren't that palatial. How they hell does anyone make a house payment like that on $89K/yr? Hell...how do you pay for what a condo or apt must cost out there on that salary? I'm not even talking having wife and kids to support....

$89K is not a high salary in this day in age...it is middle class...medium-low end of it really.

This is what bothers me in the presidential rederick that is going on wanting to raise taxes on the rich. Use to..the rich was $250K and up....today...well, apparently it is $75K and up from what I've seen. Notice where the tax rebates started declining in full value recently? Yep....$75K and you start getting rich and don't deserve a full rebate.

One rationale for having a progressive tax system is that people should be taxed less on that portion of their income necessary to meet basic needs (like renting a two bedroom apartment) than on the optional "luxury" expenses (like golf club memberships). The problem is that the United States Federal Income Tax rates are not indexed by geographical cost of living. A family making $80K a year in a small, low cost, burg in Indiana can join a low end golf club while the same family living and working in San Mateo, CA will barely be able to rent an apartment, eat, and buy gas.

Note that Medicare benefits are already, to some extent, indexed geographically. The amount that the Feds will pay for taking out an appendix in Burg Town, IN is much less than they will pay in San Mateo, CA. Why not afford this to taxes as well?

IMHO, if we are going to have a progressive Federal income tax, the tax tables should be indexed by cost of living by geographical area. (Although, I'd rather just have a flat tax with no deductions for things like mortgage deductions).

Also, anything that raises an individual's taxes when not accompanied by an income increase is a tax increase. Allowing a long standing law to expire is no different than passing a new law that that reverts an existing law. Ethically and morally, they are identical as each lawmaker should make exactly the same decision in both cases regardless of if the tax increase is the result of failing to sponsor/vote for a bill to continue the "expiring" law X or actively sponsoring/voting for a bill to override X.

$89K is not a high salary in this day in age...it is middle class...medium-low end of it really.

The median household income for the U.S. as of 2006 was $48000. The median individual income was $26000.

But the median income is pretty much the definition of the lower bound for the American middle class [wikipedia.org] income. Middle class is not the middle third of the population, but the upper half minus the 1% rich.

I wish that was true of anywhere (anywhere worth living, that is) in CA, really. When I lived in San Diego I was paying $1200/mo for a pretty terrible 1br apartment. Now in PA, I'm paying $500/mo for a nice 2br house.

I think the Chinese would be really smart if, instead of making outright counterfeits, started making "improved versions" of Apple's products: things that look much like Apple's stuff, but has all the same features and functionality, and maybe more. For instance, how hard would it be to make something like the iPhone, but which has a removable SIM card and can be used on any GSM network? I don't know about other people, but I'd be happy to buy something like this, because I like the way the iPhone works,

Seriously, we get that one of the two things he complained about is a problem. But it's valid to point out that ONLY one of the two things is a problem, and the other is either a troll, or honest misunderstanding, and there's some value in calling out either one (entertainment or learning respectively).

Speaking of marketshare then, here is where Apple is currently leading:iTunes Store #1 music retailer, relies on QuickTimeiPod #1 MP3 player, relies on iTunes and QuickTime

The iPhone is quickly rising, so it may, in a few years, become the #1 smartphone, with heavy reliance on Safari Mobile, OS X Mobile, and of course, iTunes and QuickTime.

So to put your post in perspective: If you want to be in consumer electronics, web services, online stores, consumer applications, or media players, you want to work at Apple.

I mean, you have heard of the iPod, iTunes, and iPhone, right? Nearly everyone who uses an iPod uses QuickTime, and there over 170m sold, plus 6m iPhones, that suggests nearly 1/6 of the US population is using iTunes and therefore QuickTime

Well, the contest used to be between who was the richest tech CEO in America. Gates pretty much took that crown, so now they slug it out as to who is the biggest asshole. And I gotta tell ya, it's tough picking between the likes of Larry Ellison, Steve Jobs, and the Gates/Ballmer combine. They're all royal jerks.

Outside the Bay it might note known, but there is a running joke about the coming downfall of Google from within due to it's arrogance. Google actually doesn't pay that well and uses a *lot* of 3rd party contractors who make shit on the hope of coming onto google for real.

What's really terrible is Google operates with a quit long interview process, often with a number of people. These people are all very similar and have huge chips on their shoulder and only look to hire people much like themselves. That is people from academia with not too much real market experience. They are quickly becoming a very self referential mono-culture of people who genuinely believe they are better, but without the actual experience to back it up. A telling sign is their over reliance on logic puzzle interviews, raw information queries and needing to gel solidly with a large number of people. They ask very few "how would you do X" or "how do you deal with Y" questions, instead thinking that the raw intelligence is the best feature to grade an applicant on.

Anyone who has dealt with tech "darlings" knows the danger of this. Sure they may be smart as fuck, but it doesn't mean they know how to finish or deliver. It may be hard for the slashdot poster to believe but people used to dream of working at microsoft (and before that IBM) the way they talk about google now. It's just another cycle.

I recently finished a one year contract at Google. Since leaving, I have said on numerous occasions that google's downfall will be their arrogance. You nailed it perfectly. The mono-culture you mention isn't just in their technical leanings. It's also very much evident in the political leaning of the workforce. Politics is dominated by the extreme left. You aren't supposed to hire based on politics (it's the law), but people are rejected because they "don't fit with the google culture." Google is also failing miserably in hiring military vets. That's a big no-no. I expect them to get in serious trouble for that.

(Seriously, over here a 'vet' is a vetinary surgeon. I did a bit of a double take when I was living in Houston and I saw a bumper sticker saying 'If you value your freedom, thank a vet' - and I thought, well, it's all very nice having someone to give my cat his annual FIV vaccination, but I didn't realise vetinary surgeons were the vanguard of freedom fighters too!).

What a load of bullshit... (I'm sorry, I'm not being personal here, but I'm calling it as I see it)

Have you seen some of the tech the military is dreaming up? THAT is the frontier of IT... yes, they readily engage academia, but what successful cutting edge organization doesn't?

I've worked with many former military people and I tend to be impressed with their self discipline and ability to deliver... they are by no means automatons. In fact, they are usually the people who have the balls to speak up when a project goes south, and are willing to put the work in (and cut the fat) when others are too timid.

I'd be surprised if you've actually worked with a military person in IT, or perhaps you don't know who on your team has been in the military.

Lastly, on top of the obvious flaw in your logic, by your assumptions, you're clearly shitting on the heads of those that have served the US to the best of their ability. It's your choice, but I think it's a bad one. Whenever I interview I give deference to the people who have served, and I've never been disappointed.

And another nail in Google's eventual coffin; the obsession with youth isn't all it's cracked up to be. In my experience, most software developers don't come into their prime until they are at least 25. Before then, they are still too inexperienced and make too many mistakes due to inexperience.

While you're on the topic of benefits, don't forget about the golden handcuffs. Any employee who was around for the bump and has unvested stock options has a compelling reason to stay.

I worked for a company that went through a profit cycle after a long period of doing nothing. I was expecting the company to do something to compensate the engineers who had been patient through the hard times, but then I realized something. They didn't have to. We all had significant stock options, and now that the stock was worth something we would all think twice about leaving (even though there were no raises or bonuses that year).

On the other hand, when the stock price went back down, people were dropping like flies. Eventually Apple will have to make corrections, but they are probably not there yet.

Benefits: Working in a genuinely cool atmosphere (I see guys walking around with blue dreadlocked hair, eating at Café Mac (great food, BTW) sitting across from Steve eating his veggies and vegan gourmet cookies, playing volleyball on lunch in the inner lawn of 1 Infinite Loop, etc...

But I think the greatest thing is working with other extraordinarily talented people passionate about Apple. I don't know how else to explain it. I've told this to countless people, but I think the thing that Apple does the best, bar none, is hire the right people. The process is long and arduous (even for the lowest of the low), and they make you feel very special. It's also something you notice after a while, but almost everyone else at Apple kind of behaves the same. Always upbeat, hip, and very passionate. Most have hardcore hobbies (from playing in bands to mountain climbing, almost to a person it seems), and are very goal driven. But, who wouldn't want to hire people like that? The execution at Apple in this regard is just brilliant.

Lastly, and why this has to be explained, and why nearly no one here has mentioned it is quite strange... money is not everything, not even close. Yes, the stock (not options, actual stock placed in an ETrade account, all set up for you to sell at your convenience, although I wouldn't!), 25% off product is nice, the free shit is also nice, and well, working for a great company means a hell of a lot, but the salary isn't at the top of the list of things most of the employees are wanting as far as compensation, it's all the rest, and being able to be who they are (when you saw a suit, you knew they were from out of town) and being pushed to be passionate... it's not that money, at least to the type of people Apple hires... which is my point.

They convinced you that you are better than everybody else because you went through a long and difficult process to be accepted into a group of people who themselves believe they are better than everybody else.

They provide employees with some unusual (but reasonably cheap) benefits and promote an image to both the inside and the outside that by being with them you are somehow part of a select clique.

The same process is used in elite military forces, religious cults and even in street gangs.

I bet you're surrounded by mostly males, in their late teens and twenties - they tend to be the most susceptible to this kind of group conditioning.

I have multiple friends who work for Google, that used to work for Intel.

They got paid significantly more at Intel, for what was effectively a lower-level job. (Not directly comparable in job function, but in heirarchy.) Google pays on the order of 25% less.

Comparing one single job isn't the way to go. Apple may pay less than Google or Yahoo, but, really, what job position at Apple are they referring to? TFA just say "engineers". Well, what kind? If you're comparing, say, the guy who designs the box that the iPod comes in to the guy who designs Google's customized Linux kernel, then it's not even close to comparable.

Actually, package design is a complex and in-demand field, and top package engineers are paid well. When you're making millions of iPod boxes, suddenly questions of balancing manufacturing ease, strength, size, weight (both contributing to transportation costs), materials (supply chain), appearance in the store, etc. become very very important questions.

Yes, but Google provides lots of perks like heavily subsidized and good quality food, on-site oil change, car wash, dry cleaning, massage therapy, gym, hair stylist, fitness classes, bike repair, shuttle service, etc...In fact, I would not be surprised if the IRS starts moving in on Google employees for not reporting these substantial fringe benefits as income (the IRS went after hollywood stars for high end gift baskets at award ceremonies, so it could happen).

Now, I know Google is supposed to be an absolute delight to work for, but there is also a certain "coolness" to working at Apple. Think about it, you get to work at the company that makes some of the coolest electronics and computers out there, wouldn't it be awesome to work there? That will go quite a ways towards bridging the salary gap. In addition, if Apple really started noticing its employees leaving en masse and couldn't find competent people at the salaries they offer, then they would definitely raise salaries to attract top talent. I don't think they are having much of a problem doing that with their current situation. And, if you don't have to arbitrarily raise salaries, why would you as a company do something that would cost you more if it wasn't required?

you get to work at the company that makes some of the coolest electronics and computers out there, wouldn't it be awesome to work there?

"Coolness" and "awesomeness" are hardly things that would tilt a talented person's interest in their favor. If you were offered $19K/yr to muck out the toilets at Apple when you could get $24K/yr at IBM, I doubt neither the "awesomeness" of working at Apple, nor the "coolness" of their products would significantly influence your decision.

No, if you're working in an engineering capacity what matters are things like how "interesting" the projects you're assigned are, and the support you receive from the non-engineering staff. I have worked on software projects that were utterly mundane in their purpose and end use (military fuel management systems), but were extremely interesting to work on. Slick packaging and good interface design aren't what make you want to get up in the morning to go to work.

Agreed - also, sorry but $90K is not chump change. "engineers" maybe convincing themselves of an over-inflated sense of self-worth just because of what's happening at another company. The fact is that Google cannot and will not hire 100% of engineers, thus the reality of being "able" to make better money at Google is tempered by the fact that the opportunity needs to actually present itself.

To me, that's a bit like a store with a low price guarantee on a product - if you show them a competitor's ad that has a lower price, they call and find out if the product is actually in stock and the shopper can head over right that moment and buy it. If so, then the opportunity has actually presented itself and so they honor the price.

If you take a poll of competitive salaries for similar positions at Google to your employer and demand a match, the might be inclined to determine whether any of those positions are actually opportunities for you, or if you're just trying to give them the squeeze.

Not saying that you will never get what you want, but:

a) Consider how important the difference is to you , versus...;
b) Consider the risk of losing your job over such a high differential demand with no backup plan.

For what it's worth, companies DO (sometimes) review employee compensation to ensure that they are keeping the ones they want and trimming the ones they don't, and in time Apple may end up doing the same. Any corporation worth its salt knows that its greatest asset is its workforce talent.

People love working for Google, but my friends there tell me they work 70+ hrs/week.People like working for Yahoo, but my friends there tell me they work 60+ hrs/week.People tell me they love working for Apple, because they only work 50hrs/week.

Maybe the salaries reflect that? Maybe the salary difference between Yahoo/Apple reflects the relative financial positions of the company? Maybe the salary differences have to do with Cupertino vs Mountain View cost of living? Maybe Apple employees have made buttloads of stock and HR doesn't need to pay them $20k more because they're making $50k each year in restricted stock that's vesting? Maybe Apple gives 30% bonuses and the others don't?

I don't know, you tell me. I know Salary vs Salary is normally a weak comparison.

People love working for Google, but my friends there tell me they work 70+ hrs/week.

The only people working 70+ hours/week at Google are the folks nearing a deadline, putting out a fire, or dealing with some other emergency. Some other folks do get close to that, however. The fresh out of college, in-a-new-town sort of folks have no life and so they work all week. Google gives them dinner (though I suspect dinner service will be stopping soon; shortly before I left, they were sending out surveys to see how they could "serve you better"), there are showers, and if you're young and energetic you can hook up with another geek. You get a few years before you burn out, so these guys are fine; they'll learn.

The other ones working insane hours are the people that want a pay raise. You have to get promoted to get a raise at Google. And since promotions are essentially popularity contests, you need to Be Seen (and be seen as a go-getter). Since I'm getting up in years, and I have a family life I enjoy, I never bothered to nominate myself for a promotion. It meant a few years without a raise, but the stock did well so it was a wash in my mind. The bonuses were fairly generous anyway.

The final group working long hours are those who are doing a 20% project. These are few and far between, the 20% project being primarily a myth to entice people into applying for a job. (I did a lot of interviewing, and about half the interviewees would ask about 20% projects, what mine was, etc. I could never quite bring myself to lie to them and say that there was ever the slightest chance they'd get to choose and work on a 20% project). There's been a real severe crackdown on 20% time. There's just less need for a "throw everything at a wall, see what sticks" mentality. They have a core set of products, so what you'll see from here on out is acquisitions as a way to get into offering new products/services, and add-ons to existing products (new features in Google maps, etc). There's actually a little room for 20% time in the latter areas, but the barrier to entry is non-trivial. Long gone are the days when you could host some new whizz-bang idea on your workstation or a borrowed machine in a coloc. If you want to integrate with existing services, you have to speak borg, borgmon, etc.

Anyway, there are a lot of people who put in a normal working week at Google an dare perfectly happy. They won't get promoted as often (or ever), and they won't get involved with the internal Google hip-crowd, but they can have happy, productive careers there. It's actually a pretty non-stressful place to work, once the golden handcuffs come off. I don't know that I'd work there again, but it's a fun place to be, with a lot of energy about the place.

As far as Apple, the stuff I was hearing is that there's a lot of fear for one's job, everyone needs to swear allegiance to the Cult of Steve, etc. I gather it's not a very fun place to work, and I gather that long work weeks are all but mandatory. That could just be sour grapes from overworked engineers, though.

Will Apple have to raise salaries to match the market rate, or face defections?

Depends on what else they can offer employees and how good they are at recruiting talent. Salaries are an important part of the equation but not the only one. The perks at Google are legendary which is perhaps the clearest admission that salary isn't everything.

We have to remember too that Apple is not really a direct competitor to Yahoo or Google. Sure there is some significant overlap but the real question is what are their competitors at Dell, HP, Nokia, RIM, Motorola, and Microsoft paying. I suspect Apple is likely fairly competitive on the pay. HR folks are pretty aware of what the going rate for talent is in a given area.

I don't know too much about Apple's corporate culture but clearly they are able to attract some pretty talented folks. All other things being equal people talent will migrate towards higher pay but things are rarely equal. Speaking for myself I'd rather make a little less in a fun place with interesting work and cool co-workers. Benefits are also a consideration.

Well, I'll bite. I must be fucking King of the Fanboys and a spoiler to the anti-fans, because I've worked for Apple Computer, Inc. twice. Once as a contractor in the '80s and another time as a real employee (#17xxx) during the early '90s. This was near the start of my career, so my pay was pretty low to begin with, but not bad for starters. This was during the time of John Sculley and I worked in all the engineering departments as I was primarily a network guy at that point. This brought me in contact

Well, I RTFA and while the data from the TechCrunch posting is quite interesting, the conclusion drawn from the blog post mentioned in the blurb is missing one important factor:

It takes Apples R&D budget and spreads it over the total number of employees from Apple. It then gets to the conclusion that Apple has underpaid its software engineers especially in the last few years as the R&D budget was not nearly as big as it should have been for the number of employees Apple has.

The problem with this conclusion is found in this article [daringfireball.net], which estimates that half of Apples employees are now working in retail i.e. in an Apple Store. Since Google and the likes do not have a brick and mortar business, so most employees are actually engineers, the simple calculation from the article might work there, but with Apple, it is a bit more complicated than that, especially since the retail store business has just been built in the last couple years

Dont understand me wrong, Apple could still by all means underpay its engineers, but the conclusion of the article is too simple, I think.

I doubt those numbers are worth the paper they're (virtually) printed on. For Google, their results are based on TEN responses, according to the article. That's not statistically meaningful for a population of several thousand.

In addition, they don't verify the information they're given (how could they, anyway?), nor do they have any idea who is actually posting those salaries. Interesting idea, but very suspect methodology.

This is the kind of shit that bothers me about modern America. Oh noes, those guys get paid more than me, I am the suck and must leave for greener grass. It is unbelievably short sighted and materialistic to base these kinds of comparisons strictly on salary. Even outside of taking into account other benefits such as medical, retirements, or other such things there is who you work with, who you work for, where you work, where you live, what you actually do. You know, lots of job satisfaction things. It saddens me to watch people constantly bail on jobs they like for more money only to find they hate their new job, don't get to do what they want, have completely lost seniority, etc.

I turned down job offers easily 30k more than what I make now. They weren't where I wanted to be for one. Also, while at my current employ I had to have some major surgery on my ankle. I spent 3 weeks "working" from home, which was really little more than keep up on what was going on and help with what I could through the fog of pain killers. No vacation or sick time used. Then when I did take some vacation time they had to get a hold of me for a few things, on those days they didn't charge me vacation time. I enjoy the people I work with, my boss is great about letting me just get things done (I have worked for micromanaging cockmasters before so this is GOLD in my book), and generally enjoy doing my work even on the shitty days.

I'm sure a lot of people would take lower pay if they knew they would have a job for the next 20 or 30 years vs a job that pays great, but you don't know if there will be layoffs a week, a month, or a year from now.

No clue as to whether Apple has job security, but I'm guessing it would be a huge factor if they do.

I'm not going to say anything about what the data means, but I am going to call into question the data itself. The site is based on two different types of surveys, employer ratings and salary numbers, and the site has different response results on both.

So how much does a Google software engineer really make? The average, based on ten submissions, is $97,840. And the range is between $80,000 and $150,000, with annual cash bonuses coming in anywhere from $20,000 to $45,000. Adding salary and bonus together, the Google engineers that have entered information on Glassdoor average $112,573 in take-home pay. (And then there are stock options on top of that). Yahoo and Microsoft engineers get about the same salaries, but smaller bonuses, leaving their take-home pay at an average of $105,642 and $105,375, respectively. Apple software engineers make only about $89,000, on average, but they get to create some of the most loved products on Earth.

I'm pretty sure with only 10 responses, this data is completely meaningless. However, now that people know about this site, maybe we'll see some more interesting results as more people report in.

These ratings are by no means scientific. They are based on 124 responses for Microsoft, 50 for Yahoo, and 37 for Google, all collected during the companyâ(TM)s private beta. The more honest responses the site collects from any given company, the more accurate the results will be.

I don't know where that $89,000 number came from. Everyone in my group at Apple makes at least $225,000. Well, except for one guy who just spell-checks the docs--he makes $189,000. Man, if you're making under two hundred you're really getting reamed. I mean, damn. You are at least getting the yearly $100K bonus, aren't you? I'd really be pissed if I was missing out on that. That and the key to the Happy Endings room at the gym...

Google
Google is really an ad agency. Search is just another traffic builder.
Most new hires outside of Mountain View are ad sales execs. Over time, this
will change the culture, as ad execs move up in the organization. Google has never had a second profitable product - AdWords generates all the profits. Despite all the new
"product" rollouts, none of the new stuff makes money.
When I've been over there, I get the feeling of "overfunded dot-com". There's all
this activity, but it's not contributing to their bottom line. The technical work
that does contribute to revenue revolves around ad optimization. The stock peaked
a while back, and it's way overpriced for the revenue, so don't rely on stock options.
Yes, they have free food, but the feeding schedule is designed to make people spend
their whole life at work.

Intel Dilbertland. By design. Tiny grey cubicles out to the horizon. Just visiting Intel HQ is depressing. Yet incredible CPU design work is done there, by huge teams.

Apple The Mac people hate the iPod people. The iPod people hate the iPhone people. If you're in a visible position, Steve Jobs yells at you. Some of that
attitude permeates the culture. Too much excess stress.

I can't wait to see how the Apple faithful attempt to defend this one.

How about "non-monetary benefits"?

Not everyone will jump at a job that pays more - I suspect for a growing number of people, there are certain non-monetary benefits that are worth way more than dollars. Things like flex time, telecommuting, vacation are often things that people may value more than their equivalent dollar value.

Maybe Apple offers a no-nonsense environment where they can work on their stuff until "it's done right" rather than "we must ship, fix it later" mentality. Maybe they like Apple. Maybe Apple as an employer treats them fairly. Who knows (I don't work for Apple). Or maybe the work environment is such that it's a healthy one, or stimulating, or something people can feel happy about and look forward to going to everyday. Or maybe they're working on a pet project (after all, Apple has hired a number of people from the open-source community, like FreeBSD developers), and they're getting paid for what would otherwise be volunteer work.

Money isn't everything to a job. For some, it's the most important thing, but for others, once they have enough to satisfy their material needs and current wants, excess money just goes to taxes. Sure other jobs can pay more, but they may make demands that are incompatible with how one wishes to spend their time. In fact, I might say if all that keeps one to a job is money, then there's something wrong.

Or, to answer the original quote - maybe the reality distortion field works great.

Southwest Airlines has always paid less for just about every single position than the industry standard, from the CEO to the pilots to the attendants. Yet every time SA is hiring for a new position, they'll have dozens or hundreds of people from the other airlines interview for it. Why? Because working at most airlines is a crappy, thankless job, and at Southwest it's fun.

Not sure how well that applies here though, as Google has a reputation for being pretty fun while Apple has a reputation of having people scream at you when your project is late or experiencing difficulties. I guess some people are gluttons for pain;-)

Defend that the engineers continue to work at Apple despite lower than average salaries? Nobody's making them stay, and with Apple on their resume they could get work other places quite easily. This isn't like Wal-Mart dragging down the wages of an entire town.

If anything, Yahoo should question why they're paying their engineers so much.

Everywhere Wal Mart has gone, its had beneficial effects for the area as a whole. Mom and Pop dime store go out of business because of big bad Wal Mart? So what? Small food stores and delis go under because of chain grocery stores too. General stores and hardware stores went under when Sears and JC Penney were dominant.

Wherever a chain store like Wal Mart or Target or Costco opens, a whole ecosystem of small stores spring up around it. You not only get cheaper prices with chains, you also get a much better selection of goods. The tax base always... always increases in that area, not decreases. And last I checked, Wal Mart isn't the only chain that doesn't pay big bucks to their employees. Are you bitching about Best Buy, Circuit City, and Food Lion as well? Do you shop at those stores anyway, or do you voluntarily pay higher prices at places like Whole Foods? Do you seriously expect anyone to pay good money for slinging stock at a department store? Had Wal Mart never come to these small towns, how is it that you figure their income or the town's tax base would have increased otherwise?

You people act like Wal Mart conquers and forces entire populations to shopping enslavement. This is a market economy, and businesses succeed because they give customers what they want, or someone else comes and takes their business away. If there's money, there's going to be competition for it. Mom and Pop stores, cute and quaint Americana that they were, weren't getting it done. Someone else built a better mousetrap. For that matter, why don't you bemoan the loss of small bookstores, neighborhood gas stations, and Five and Dimes while you're at it? They've all been swept away too, and Wal Mart had nothing to do with their death.

While you're at it, would you like to curse the web? Amazon and their like are also doing what Wal Mart did, only on a wider scale, and you don't get the benefit of any local brick and mortar presence... or the tax funds they bring. But would you argue that Amazon has been a bad thing? If you feel that strongly about small businesses, you patronize them, by all means. But don't expect to be able to force myself and other customers to shop at such places when there's a better alternative.

Having worked at Apple, I can tell you that the conditions where I worked weren't great. In fact, the company that poached me and offered me more money has far better conditions - including personal growth time, further education opportunities (which they pay for), and a real focus on staff health.

At Apple, you're expected to be available from 6.00 am to 9.00 pm or later some times. There is no idea whatsoever of a work-life balance. You get great discounts on hardware, but corporate clients of Apple get an Apple staff discount too - my current employer fits in that category.

I wouldn't go back in a fit - they'd have to offer me a lot more money if they wanted that.

YES! They probably are mostly zealots and fanboys otherwise they'd be working for M$. Pretty much anyone with an Apple becomes a zealboy so they have about 5% of the computing audience to hire from and most of them don't know they're being shafted, they're just working a dream job for the company that made the friendly overpriced computer they love.

I know you're being sarcastic, but that does touch a subject that I've genuinely wondered about.

See most stories we're graced with from Apple (which isn't to say it's a comprehensive set, but just that that's the image that Apple itself is perfectly happy to give) is that everything happened because of the Great Man Steve Jobs, and (thinly veiled) in spite of those lazy incompetent engineers. X is all due to the Great Man's vision. Y was personally tested by the Great Man. Z only happened because the Great Man yelled at the engineers and told them to make the things He wants. W happened because, frighteningly enough, the Great Man didn't yell for a change, but just fixed the engineers with his iciest stare and asked them when are they going to get it done. Etc.

Frankly, it gives the impression of something more like Stalin's USSR or Mao's China than anything even vaguely resembling a company or a boss I'd like to work for. Not saying that it's necessarily that bad, I wouldn't know, but that's the impression that Apple's propaganda machine leaves. Seen from outside, and if the question came, "well, would I want to quit my job and try to get a job there?", it doesn't exactly sound motivational, to say the least.

Even skipping past the other implications, I never heard the Great Man giving credit to anyone else but himself. You hear all the time about how the iPod's success is because Steve Jobs himself said how loud the volume button should go, but you never hear who was actually the guy who designed the bloody thing. Well, not from Apple. It's not hard to dig up the names, but I'd like just once to hear Apple just come out and say "we'd like to thank these guys for making it possible."

Even from MS, for all its other sins, you hear about who championed, say, their getting into the whole Internet thing, against Bill Gates's vision. Or about those two guys whose bright idea was to make DirectX instead of just going with the OpenGL flow. Heck, you even hear about the Bob clusterfuck being the brain child of Melinda Gates. Good or bad, it's not particularly hard to find out who was really behind what.

I'm not saying that Bill Gates is a nice guy, and Ballmer probably even less so. But between one narcissistic bully who at least gives credit, and a narcissistic bully who doesn't, Bill comes out as a bit less of a low life on my scale.

Frankly, just about the only positive thing I hear about Apple as an employer, is that they don't discriminate against anyone. Their world is so centered around the cult of Steve Jobs, that there is no room for caring whether you're black, gay or whatever else. You're the worthless peon, and that's enough about you already.

I have no direct experience or knowledge, but I'd imagine that it's not nearly as bad as you make it out to be. Steve Jobs might not give a rats ass about most of his employees beyond whether or not they're being productive (I doubt most CEO's of large companies are), but that doesn't mean he'd kick dirt in your face just for the fun of it.

I don't think it's really possible for any company to make products that so many consumers are ridiculously passionate about unless the employees working on it are at least as passionate about their work. I'm not sure how Apple specifically motivates their employees, but I'd wager a guess that they seek out people who are already fairly strongly-self motivated for whatever reason, and once you've got people like that, as long as you keep them busy with work that they feel is worthwhile and they feel like they're producing something of quality, then it's pretty self-perpetuating.

We've all had the experience where a project that we were doing (maybe not at work, maybe as a hobby) becomes so engrossing that we willingly stay up to the wee hours of the morning, because we're really enjoying what we're doing. If a job can provide that on any sort of consistent basis, then it's a good place to be. The stuff that I read about Apple makes it sound like it's that sort of place for a lot of people.

If you ever actually watched the end of keynote you'd see that often Lord Jobs asks the engineers to stand for a round of applause. The atmosphere of the company is secretive though. Most tech companies issue endless press releases and promises of things to come and then produce crap where as Apple stays quiet until they're actually ready to release something of value.

If you ever actually watched the end of keynote you'd see that often Lord Jobs asks the engineers to stand for a round of applause.

Jobs is also well known for being aggressive, demanding and egotistical [wikipedia.org]. He frequently has been not-very-nice to those who work for him. He's a talented manager but has rarely been described as kind or gentle. He gets results which is why people tolerate his style. I suspect he does care about the people who work for him but he appears to be hard to work for at times.

I've met the man, and he's a jerk. But since I'm an Apple Zealot, I always thought of him as our jerk. And as you pointed out, this is not exactly a secret. There's a wonderful site called Folklore.com [folklore.org], created by Andy Hertzfeld, one of the original creators of the original Mac OS and Apple Employee #435. The site is filled with plenty of stories about Steve, of course, but my favorites are the ones about the other engineers, such as those about Burrel Smith [folklore.org].

At the end of the day, however, Steve Jobs is the face of Apple, the figurehead. He couldn't have achieved Apple's current success without thousands of people supporting him, but Apple couldn't have gotten to this point without him either. Remember that the Board of Directors was considering selling the company off when Jobs returned to the company in in 1997.

If you want to see how much of an asshole Jobs can really be to employees, just see what he would do to his best friend.... (nicked from wikipedia):

He returned to his previous job at Atari and was given the task of creating a circuit board for the game Breakout. According to Atari Founder Nolan Bushnell, Atari had offered US$100 for each chip that was reduced in the machine. Jobs had little interest or knowledge in circuit board design and made a deal with Wozniak to split the bonus evenly between them if Wozniak could minimize the number of chips. Much to the amazement of Atari, Wozniak reduced the number of chips by 50, a design so tight that it was impossible to reproduce on an assembly line. At the time, Jobs told Wozniak that Atari had only given them US$600 (instead of the actual US$5000) and that Wozniak's share was thus US$300

I never heard the Great Man giving credit to anyone else but himself. You hear all the time about how the iPod's success is because Steve Jobs himself said how loud the volume button should go, but you never hear who was actually the guy who designed the bloody thing. Well, not from Apple. It's not hard to dig up the names, but I'd like just once to hear Apple just come out and say "we'd like to thank these guys for making it possible."

Just watch a Keynote speech.

Steve Jobs trots out a half-dozen people, remarks how this person worked on this and that person lead this great team who did that, and generally gives credit to lots of other people, including people who aren't even directly part of Apple. He's done this at EVERY keynote speech pretty much since he's been giving them.

Honestly Steve Jobs hasn't been one to toot his own horn. Sure there isn't a lack of OTHER people doing it but you'd be hard-pressed to find many places where he says that he was the only one who did X, Y, and Z for Apple.

If you want to see some good history about all the old Macintosh crew, go take a look at Folklore.org [folklore.org]. There's a lot there about Steve Jobs for sure, but also a lot about all the other people who worked on the first Macintoshes. Steve Jobs is hardly the only one who is recognized for his work at Apple.

Where has anyone given the impression that Apple engineers are lazy and incompetent? I think maybe you're projecting from your own sense of not being recognized or something here. If anyone at Apple thought they didn't have great engineers, they wouldn't bother to push them to make great products. Nobody I know at Apple (even in traditionally clueless divisions like marketing) thinks the engineers and programmers are anything but the lifeblood and foundation of the company.

But yes, much of what Apple was originally and is again now, is due to Jobs' marketing savvy and seemingly magical ability to know when a device is ready (as opposed to needing another 3 months of work) and how people can be doing something in the future without worrying so much about the limitations the rest of us are aware of. There are lots of people who are great long-term visionaries, and lots of folks who are great engineers capable of building most anything you can imagine, but there are very few short-term visionaries capable of really knowing what needs to be built 12-24 months from now.

If you've never worked with a fantastically inspirational and inspired boss, it's hard to understand. Sure, over the long term it can be tiring, and after the twentieth time you go back to the drawing board because his inspiration just doesn't match up with the laws of physics, you want to set his house on fire. But when every talented engineer in the room says something is impossible, and the boss insists you do it anyway, and 6 months later you're all amazed because you managed to make it work -- that's a great feeling.

Most programmers, designers, and engineers I know complain that projects get rushed out the door before they're done, that they never get a chance to really use iterative design techniques to create a better widget, because once it is "good enough", they have to put it in a box and move on to the next project. Being able to work at a company where "good enough" is NOT good enough, is what many people dream about -- knowing that you can create the whole project, then throw it out and do it RIGHT, is a blessing. Yeah, if you just want a job with direct deposit where you don't have to do much other than punch the clock, it isn't the best company to work for. But if you want to create products people will use every day -- and LOVE USING -- while keeping enough time for family and a normal life, it's a pretty great company.

It's a gross over simplification to pretend that the vision of steve jobs is the reason why apple has been seemingly consistently good recently. (Note jobs was evicted from his own company due to his poor "vision" at a time. In this poor performing time many apple engineers moved to microsoft.)

Jobs himself often points out that it's the apple staff as a whole which produces great products. Their success has been due mostly to good research, listening to their customers and realising that their survival relies on innovation (apple have one of the largest r&d capabilities of tech companies, originally apple directed all advertising dollars into r&d.)

For every apple success there is a history of modern flops such as: apple hifi, apple tv mk 1, the cube, xserve raid, etc, many of which Jobs had a direct hand in designing. Apple's modern successes are Mac OS X, iMac, iPod, iPhone and iTunes. Which are maintained and proliferated by huge teams of staff which Jobs does not oversee directly.

Um, most people do expect that there will be layoffs and cutbacks when a company is losing money. It's certainly not uncommon. Getting let go with 10 minutes notice is a pretty steep pay cut by any standard.

I'm glad you're not my boss, though. Not only do you seem to be completely clueless about the value of experience and qualifications (no, interns or Indians really can't replace most skilled labor, no matter what your consultants try to sell you for $600/hour), you seem to be downright contemptuous of anyone who isn't sufficiently grateful that they aren't homeless and starving.

Of course, given your words here, I suspect all your qualified people have already quit, so hiring a bunch of Indians probably WOULD be just as good as whomever has such lack of career options as to stick around and take your attitude.

It makes me think of all the ads I see on craigslist where companies want to pay $10/hour for someone to do some technical job, inevitably they get several replies telling them what cheapskates they are and that nobody qualified would apply. The beauty is, they'll get all sorts of unqualified people applying, and then when the project fails, they'll pat themselves on the back for being so smart as not to pay more than $10/hour, because after all, if the cheap ones couldn't do the job, the more expensive ones would have just wasted even more money!

You just keep at it, don't you? You really make this too easy. I know this response wasn't directed at me, but I'll put in my 2 cents.

For one thing did I say anything about any indians, are you singleing them out for any specific reason?

Probably because, at the moment, they are the most common in this country when it comes to outsourcing and/or H1B holders.

Also, anyone that is dumb enough to use consulants is an idiot

Nice generalization there. Sorry, man, but while some consultants are overpaid, a lot of us are more than worth what we get paid. Then again, I'm talking as one of the consultants that people call when there's an emergency or things absolutely have to be done right and have to be done right now.

Maybe I didn't explain my self enough earlier, american employees in general are too spoiled, and expect too much from companies.

Oh really? Is that why so many companies that I've seen expect their employees to work insane hours with absolutely no job security? In fact, they work longer hours than other countries who, apparently according to you, are less "spoiled".

It seems that you think people are "too spoiled" because they look out for themselves because they *know* that half of the companies out there are going to try to screw them over.

But anyone that agreed to do a job and signed a contract to work for a company, and then thinks that they should get more because the company did well all of the sudden, is a greedy bastard and doesn't deserve a job with them.

Expecting a wage in line with the average in the area for your position and skill level is not being greedy. In fact, in most companies in this country, in order to get a raise that amounts to anything at all, you have to change jobs.

Sorry to tell you this, but that rather points at the company as being the greedy bastard; not the person who wants a decent wage.

I have to say honestly that you have no idea what in the hell you're talking about. Quit while you're ahead.

As the other poster said, when a company in this country loses money, layoffs are common. Hell, half the time they're common just to bump up the stock of a publicly traded company a few points.

You better bet that we, as employees, look out for our own best interests, and that includes the amount we are paid. Nobody else will.

That said, I have to tell you that there is basically zero chance I would want to work for you. In a few lines, you've proved that, if you *are* a manager (which I doubt), you don't value your employees, aren't in touch with the realities of business, and create an adversarial environment in your workplace.

That's not conducive to getting good people.

I have news for you - quality people *aren't* cheap and *aren't* easily replaced. This is especially true mid-project when the time for a new person to figure out what they are doing is, to say the least, non-trivial.

I was one of the people who made Mac OS X into UNIX(tm), and we started from not even being able to compile the test suite.

My first one line header file change to xnu to test the water (not defining size_t in ) broke 156 projects, including Open Source that was written by people who assumed promiscuous #include files, in violation of the standard.

A relatively small team of us fixed well over 40,000 total test case failures in a period of about 2.5 years, many of those in command line tools, most of that code being pushed back out to the various Open Source projects. Like, oh, "gcc", "bash", "vim", "tar", "bc", "pax", and hundreds of others, which are now UNIX conformant because of us.

In the middle of things we were working 80 hour weeks, sometimes more.

At the end... *almost no one noticed the changes*, because we worked our *asses* off to make sure there was so close to zero *both binary and source* compatibility issues that it would *not* be noticed. One member of the team put it this way: "It's like raising everyone 12 feet into the air, and replacing the Earth underneath them, then lowering them back down to the ground".

All told, we changed more lines of code in the kernel, libraries, compiler, and UNIX(tm) standardized utilities, than all of the non-conformance related changes in Tiger and Leopard combined. I counted.

And then we published the sources for everything needed to build your own Darwin system that could pass the UNIX(tm) conformance test, including our kernel.